[regext] Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-regext-rdap-extensions-05.txt

2025-02-12 Thread kowa...@denic.de
Hi Scott, On 12.02.25 18:06, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote: *From:* Pawel Kowalik *Sent:* Wednesday, February 12, 2025 11:59 AM *To:* Andrew Newton (andy) *Cc:* regext@ietf.org *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] [regext] Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-regext-rdap-extensions-05.txt Hi Andy, On 12.02.25 17:06

[regext] Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-regext-rdap-extensions-05.txt

2025-02-12 Thread Hollenbeck, Scott
From: Pawel Kowalik Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 11:59 AM To: Andrew Newton (andy) Cc: regext@ietf.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] [regext] Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-regext-rdap-extensions-05.txt Hi Andy, On 12.02.25 17:06, Andrew Newton (andy) wrote: Allowing bare identifiers still

[regext] Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-regext-rdap-extensions-05.txt

2025-02-12 Thread Pawel Kowalik
Hi Andy, On 12.02.25 17:06, Andrew Newton (andy) wrote: Allowing bare identifiers still leave the choice open for extensions which have a potential of generic use. Why does requiring a prefix preclude generic use? Of course technically nothing, because syntactically a prefixed identifier is

[regext] Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-regext-rdap-extensions-05.txt

2025-02-12 Thread Andrew Newton (andy)
On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 10:12 AM Pawel Kowalik wrote: > > Hi Andrew, > > On 12.02.25 15:09, Andrew Newton (andy) wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 1:42 AM Pawel Kowalik wrote: > > [PK] I am typically of an opinion that simple is better than complicated. > > In this case however I have my concern

[regext] Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-regext-rdap-extensions-05.txt

2025-02-12 Thread Pawel Kowalik
Hi Andrew, On 12.02.25 15:09, Andrew Newton (andy) wrote: On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 1:42 AM Pawel Kowalik wrote: [PK] I am typically of an opinion that simple is better than complicated. In this case however I have my concerns that even though new rules would be defined the specifications not

[regext] Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-regext-rdap-extensions-05.txt

2025-02-12 Thread Andrew Newton (andy)
On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 1:42 AM Pawel Kowalik wrote: > > [PK] I am typically of an opinion that simple is better than complicated. > > In this case however I have my concerns that even though new rules would be > defined > > the specifications not following them would be hard to weed out > > maki

[regext] Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-regext-rdap-extensions-05.txt

2025-02-11 Thread Pawel Kowalik
Hi Andy, On 05.02.25 21:41, Andrew Newton (andy) wrote: Hi all, We, the author team, have posted a new version of this draft. This reflects 22 closed issues from the tracker, and these are noted in the draft text with an aside. All that said, I think our efforts to do carve-outs based on exist

[regext] Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-regext-rdap-extensions-05.txt

2025-02-05 Thread Andrew Newton (andy)
Hi all, We, the author team, have posted a new version of this draft. This reflects 22 closed issues from the tracker, and these are noted in the draft text with an aside. All that said, I think our efforts to do carve-outs based on existing extensions creates a somewhat complex set of rules for